- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Güzel İstanbul
.jpg)
Güzel İstanbul in the Yıldız Park in 2020.
- ... that the plinth of Güzel İstanbul (pictured) told a story of Istanbul with motifs; its air with a honeysuckle, its population with a bee, its divinity with a fig, and the many legends with a pomegranate? Source: Antmen (2009), p. 367 Şenol (1974), p. 1
- ALT1: ... that the destroyed plinth of Gürdal Duyar's nude sculpture Güzel İstanbul (pictured) contained reliefs of a fig, a pomegranate, a honeysuckle and a bee to represent different aspects of Istanbul? Source: Antmen (2009), p. 367 Şenol (1974), p. 1 Destroyed plinth.
Sources edit
- Antmen, Ahu (1 Apr 2009). "Türk Kültüründe Beden Ve "Güzel İstanbul" Olayı" [The body in Turkish culture and the "Beautiful Istanbul" affair]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences (in Turkish). 8 (30): 366–375. ISSN 1304-0278. Retrieved 13 Jun 2022.
- Şenol, Bahattin (11 March 1974). "«Güzel Istanbul» heykeli Karaköy Meydanına kondu" [The «Güzel Istanbul» sculpture has been placed on Karaköy Square]. Milliyet (in Turkish). p. 1.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Created by Gazozlu (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Güzel İstanbul; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
- The article has lots (10) of fair use images, and thus IMHO fail the minimal use criterion (the article has galleries with fair use images). I understand that a photo of it in its original location could be considered fair use, but the article has three. Also, there are two cartoons, four photos of its removal and its consequences and one more of it being hidded. Only one photo about the removal should suffice. Not sure if this alone is enough to reject the nomination.
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Given the issue with the IMO overuse of fair use images in the article, I will approve if the author removes most of them, because IMHO these is a reason to review the newly acquired good article status. Ppt91 mentioned in GA review that the article is image heavy, which makes a case against the fair use images being a minimal use. Anyway, I prefer ALT1, as it is more accurate. Maybe the word lost should be replaced by destroyed. C messier (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @C messier: Hi, indeed during the review process, in the beginning, there were too many images. But at that time we are talking about 6 newspaper images that were all reactions to the removal so they were all the same type of thing. That has been reduced to only 2 most iconic cartoons. The other images, except for maybe the first one, all show different specific events that are handled in the prose of the article, so I believe since they show different events and are not just a gallery of the event, they rationale to have them was accepted. Let me know what you think.20:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Gazozlu: the use of fair use material should be as minimal as possible, even if that means that some of the events in the article won't have a related photo. The most common reasons for use of non free images are here. The only photo that can fulfill without problem the criteria is one of the sculpture with the now gone pedestral. The article has three of them. The cartoons aren't the main topic of the article, the sculpture is (these particular cartoons aren't even mentioned in the main text). The fair use photos of the statue in Yildiz park don't offer any significant value over the free one. The pile of rubble isn't really adding significant value either, and the same is true about the statue being hidden with samplings. Not sure about the photo showing the people standing on the pedestral. C messier (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @C messier: I have adjusted the images:
- I have removed the extra images showing the sculpture in its original state from different angles.
- I have removed the image of the sculpture covered with saplings.
- I've left the image of the pedestal in a state of rubble, and the people standing on the pedestal, because the text refers, now more explicitly, to those images.
- I've left the images of the cartoons, the text refers to the cartoon of Erdoğan Bozok "One of the cartoons represented those that would remove the sculpture as backwards and outdated", the other one I am not sure, perhaps we can remove the other one.
- I've left the image of the sculpture on its side because the image is what initiated further discourse in news that lead to the sculpture being re-erected.
- I've left the image of the sculpture being re-erected as well because the text talks about this event.
- Do you agree with the rationale for keeping these remaining images? --Gazozlu (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Gazozlu: the fair use policy is quite strict as far as the use of unfree media is conserned. The image must add significant value, that can help better understand the article topic. I.e. a photo of the original statue adds significant value, but the reader can understand that a pedestral became a pile of rubble by the reading the text and pretty much knows how a pile of rubble looks. The photo doesn't provide information that would be impossible to get otherwise. The same happens with the photos of it lying on its side and of its re-erection. The reader already knows how the sculpture looks like and so these two photos don't add a significant value that would require the use of unfree media. The brief mentioning of the event they depict in the text isn't enough to justify their use; unfree images must add value/info that would be really difficult to get without them. In short, if the image itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, can remain. In that regard, Erdoğan Bozok's cartoon could remain, but the other should be removed. (as the use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable) Similarly, the photo of the people standing on the pedestral apparently hasn't being the subject of sourced discussion (the source in the text, if I understand correctly, is the newspaper front page it self), so it should be removed too. C messier (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- @C messier: I have adjusted the images:
- @Gazozlu: the use of fair use material should be as minimal as possible, even if that means that some of the events in the article won't have a related photo. The most common reasons for use of non free images are here. The only photo that can fulfill without problem the criteria is one of the sculpture with the now gone pedestral. The article has three of them. The cartoons aren't the main topic of the article, the sculpture is (these particular cartoons aren't even mentioned in the main text). The fair use photos of the statue in Yildiz park don't offer any significant value over the free one. The pile of rubble isn't really adding significant value either, and the same is true about the statue being hidden with samplings. Not sure about the photo showing the people standing on the pedestral. C messier (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I just noticed that ALT1 is 206 characters long. I changed through which he represented with to represent to be within limits. C messier (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
